bet365 boss pays herself £265 MILLION

I am registered on various gambling sites like Holland Casino, bet365 and Toto.

I only use Toto these days to get the bonus the ''free spins'' every monday.
I just put money and played it around a safer gamble ( e.g. Roulette) to profit from the bonus deals, I've never topped off my account outside of that. (At Holland Casino you'd get 50% bonus over your topup if you played that money around)

I pull one or 2 tenners out of Toto every 2 months or so for just making use of their free spins deal, in Holland Casino I made a calculated bet, put 200 in it, returned 300 ish, and never topped up again. I know the chances and take them, the chance was basically over 90% if stopped at profit...

I can imagine it's terrible for some people, I view myself as quite addiction sensitive but with this I always kept my cool.

It's sad to see people addicted to gambling because all the slots games are rubbish really.
 
Last edited:
flea.rider said:
have you had an addiction .. i have .. i'm i still addicted .... no ... so i can assure you it is
Click to expand...
I do. And you still do. You just don’t do the thing you’re addicted to anymore and congratulations and well done you were able to stop doing what you are addicted to. But you can’t cure an addiction. You can only stop doing the thing you are addicted to.
 
If she earns a lot and pays all her tax fairly. She can earn trillions as far as I'm concerned as long as the money makes it's way back into the economy I see no issues.

But perhaps I'm naive. People that abuse or circumvent taxes I don't agree with however people who earn a lot and do everything above board then I don't understand the outcry unless they're exploiting people or doing illegal activities but that's a different issue.

If as a business they're reinvesting into it to make it better and offering good packages for their staff then good on them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fez
flea.rider said:
is it her fault she has a business that's thriving ? no .. so as it's her's she can take what she wants .. people with weak minds who think there going to win .. need help .. but why is that her fault ? if a fat person walks into a supermarket every day and spends £80 is that the fault of the supermarket ?
Click to expand...

Absolutely, I have no will power and now one of my main diabetes pills has had to go from 10mg to 25mg along with the other 3 different pills I take for it.
Definitely the shops fault for selling crap.
 
snowdog said:
I don't really understand the hate against rich people, so many people I speak speak negatively over Jeff Bezo's etc... But we all use Amazon (from the shop to Amazon Video to AWS)...
Click to expand...

The reason people hate the uber wealthy is because their fortunes are almost always built on the back of other peoples misery in some way. We have a world with massive resources and wealth and yet a vanishingly small number of people have more money than they could spend in 1000 lifetimes whilst a large number of people live is misery and poverty.

To use your Jeff Bezos example, he pays as little tax as humanly possible, treats his lowest tier of employees like absolute **** and is responsible for a huge amount of pollution and conspicuous consumption.

Its not hard to wonder why those mega wealthy individuals aren't on many peoples christmas card list.
 
Thekwango said:
You can only stop doing the thing you are addicted to.
Click to expand...

and that's what I said, you can say stop at any time.
it may still be on your mind all the time but you can stop.

and yes I was addicted to not eating food, ended up in a Mental Hospital in 1988 and still to this day I have mental fights every time I eat but I eat because:
a) My family
b) I don't really want to die yet
 
Roar87 said:
The economy is heavily regulated, there isn't "unregulated capitalism" in any country.
Click to expand...

Its just regulated by the very people who shouldn't be within a hundred miles of a regulatory body...

Look at the regulation in most industries and its designed to heavily favour the massive players in that area. Thats not a coincidence. America is utterly appalling for it and its not even subtle.

There comes a point where regulation is so dominated by those its supposed to be regulating that its hard to argue that its regulation at all.
 
Last edited:
SexyGreyFox said:
and that's what I said, you can say stop at any time.
it may still be on your mind all the time but you can stop.

and yes I was addicted to not eating food, ended up in a Mental Hospital in 1988 and still to this day I have mental fights every time I eat but I eat because:
a) My family
b) I don't really want to die yet
Click to expand...
and to you too i say, well done. but it's not as easy as 'just stopping' whatever your addiction is - that's shockingly poor form from someone who knows addiction to even suggest it is.
 
fez said:
he pays as little tax as humanly possible
Click to expand...
I would do absolutely the same in his position.
fez said:
whilst a large number of people live is misery and poverty.
Click to expand...
Isn't the group at the bottom smaller and smaller? I don't know but I feel like this group was larger in the past and many more people these days have the basics including luxuries like access to the internet and a smartphone which opens an almost endless list of possibilities to make something of yourself and learn.
fez said:
treats his lowest tier of employees like absolute ****
Click to expand...
Supply and demand, I agree that the US worked have it very bad, and that the good in Europe comes from regulation.
I grew up in a very poor family but earn more than double what my parents earned at their best, partly due to AWS. My point being is that anyone can grow and earn a decent living in our world, partly thanks to infrastructure laid out by rich people, something I would not have viewed possible in the 60's/70's. AWS allowed my employer to earn money (and thus pay my wage). I indirectly earn a living through Amazon.
 
Last edited:
Jono8 said:
It is nowhere near regulated enough. Hence why there is such an absurd (and ever growing..) global wealth divide.
Click to expand...

Did you consider that the alternative to a big gap between the poorest and richest in society is for millions to starve to death instead? Or do you think the solution of "more regulation" (whatever that means?) will just be a net positive for society?

The arrogance is astounding actually to assume that you can create a better system than the one we currently have, where people are largely well fed living comfortable lives and even the poorest people in Western countries live better than Kings did.
 
Roar87 said:
Did you consider that the alternative to a big gap between the poorest and richest in society is for millions to starve to death instead?
Click to expand...

What? How is that the alternative to reigning in absurd executive salaries/corporate profits etc?

The only reason a better system has not been put in place is because powerful rich people can help dictate and manipulate said system.

As an example, just properly sit down and think about mortgages/house values for a minute, until you realise just how absurd it is.
 
Last edited:
Minusorange said:
The takehome pay is still an obscene amount of money though so an extra 10/20% in tax wouldn't really deprive them
Click to expand...
While I agree, this is probably the cost of transparancy. Because they're toeing the line it is laid bare for all to see. If they wanted to shift it offshore as the majority would in the same situation then nobody would be any the wiser. As @SexyGreyFox mentioned earlier, I know people that work there and they are extremely well paid.
 
Roar87 said:
Did you consider that the alternative to a big gap between the poorest and richest in society is for millions to starve to death instead? Or do you think the solution of "more regulation" (whatever that means?) will just be a net positive for society?

The arrogance is astounding actually to assume that you can create a better system than the one we currently have, where people are largely well fed living comfortable lives and even the poorest people in Western countries live better than Kings did.
Click to expand...
are you a secret billionaire on a one man crusade to set the plebs straight?
 
snowdog said:
I would do absolutely the same in his position.
Click to expand...

I would like to think I wouldn't. What is the difference between 10bn and 12bn apart from the fact that 2bn in tax would probably make a large difference to thousands of lives?

snowdog said:
Isn't the group at the bottom smaller and smaller? I don't know but I feel like this group was larger in the past and many more people these days have the basics including luxuries like access to the internet and a smartphone which opens an almost endless list of possibilities to make something of yourself and learn.
Click to expand...

Probably. That doesn't excuse the fact it should be far smaller and that we should have society that gives every child the best chance of leading a good life no matter how ****** their circumstances at birth.

snowdog said:
Supply and demand, I agree that the US worked have it very bad, and that the good in Europe comes from regulation.
I grew up in a very poor family but earn more than double what my parents earned at their best, partly due to AWS. My point being is that anyone can grow and earn a decent living in our world, partly thanks to infrastructure laid out by rich people, something I would not have viewed possible in the 60's/70's. AWS allowed my employer to earn money (and thus pay my wage). I indirectly earn a living through Amazon.
Click to expand...

Thats the argument that a lot of people use as to why companies should be allowed to do as they please. Because they might not pay much tax but all their employees do. I don't agree with that. Both should be bearing the tax burden. Thats basically an abusive relationship. "If you don't let them take advantage of you then they might leave and you will be worse off".

As to the infrastructure laid out by rich people, its not rich people doing that, its largely the average person. Who does the work, who pays the majority of taxes. This is one of the big arguments for companies paying their fair share in tax. They are the the ones that use our infrastructure that decades of taxes have paid for. They use the roads, the railways etc. Without all of that they wouldn't have transport, wouldn't have an educated workforce, wouldn't have a healthy workforce without the NHS. Without AWS there would be someone else running a huge number of the services that businesses, websites etc depend on.

We need to stop with the idea that businesses are anything but a largely self-serving entity that would sacrifice children if they were allowed and it would increase their profits.
 
devil has all the best tunes - never seen advert before, on tv last night - supposedly add had been withdrawn due to betting prioritzed over family


 
Roar87 said:
Did you consider that the alternative to a big gap between the poorest and richest in society is for millions to starve to death instead?
Click to expand...
Why would that be the alternative? Look at Sweden, Norway, Finland, The Netherlands. They have followed policies to try to reduce inequality across their society. They are inarguably better places to live for the average person, whereas the UK is one of the most unequal places in the developed world. There are economic forecasts that suggest that in the next 10 years, the average person in Poland will have a better quality of life than in the UK.

Here's an interesting fact for you:-
Without any GDP growth, if the UK had the equivalent income distribution as the Netherlands or France, the median UK household would be something £9k a year better off. We're not talking about communism, just similar social policies to redistribute spending not just to the poorest, but to the *average* person.

Things like better education. Better childcare provision. Better local transport. How can you argue against that?

One of the biggest things we'd have to do is change taxes on unearned income (i.e. capital gains) to line up with earned income.

I just don't see how you can argue for the system we have now in the UK - who is it working for?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom